The Stein runneth over

Law Professor Eric Muller writes today about Ben Stein's visit to the law school. In the comments section, Barry Jacobs writes:

Hey, be fair! Stein is more than a "actor/comedian," and Coulter more than a "pundit/whacko." They're both well-credentialed lawyers (albeit no longer practicing--much like most of the law professors I know!). Their legal experience informs their outspoken advocacy of their political views, and hence makes them appropriate speakers to address young people (of whatever political bent) who aspire to enter the profession.

and that got me thinking...especially that line, "[t]hey're both well-credentialed lawyers . . . ."

Mr. Jacobs raises a nice topic, albeit going a different direction than would I.

Lots of folks wrote and spoke, in light of Chicks-Robbins-Sheen, etc dissents from the war, about what it means when celebrities speak about social or political issues of the day. I saw more than a few pundits bemoan the pervasive and supposed illegitimate voice that these celebrities were afforded. Why, they wondered, do we care what the dixie chicks have to say about whether we should go to war.
(Of course, the anti-celebrity-with-opinions crowd seemed happy to listen to Darryl Worley's utterly moronic linking of 9-11 with Hussein in his song, 'Have you Forgotten?'.)

In any event, UNC-Law's Federalist Society seems not to be amongst the group of people that disdain certain speakers that achieve supposed legitimacy merely through celebrity status. Rather, the group, I reckon, has embraced the market...higher sales equates with better. Why they've brought in Coulter and Stein to explain the federalist legal philosophy is beyond me.
While Jacobs may know something about the legal work of these two speakers, an attendee of their respective talks (as myself) would be left clueless as to any place where legal thinking informed the discussion. I doubt I need to go further with Coulter. Stein, at least, was more thoughtful - he responded to questions with some sincerity.

BUT- his only real point today was to compare abortion to slavery. his legal points were inconsistent. In slavery, it was morally imperative to abolish what was allowed for in the constitution, and later, the segregation that followed. Thesis 1) sometimes 'judicial activism' is good.

In abortion, the privacy right cum abortion right is an obscene exercise of judicial power that should be condemned. Thesis 2) sometimes 'judicial activism' is bad.

Fair enough. So this is where Barry Jacobs' faith in the informing legal experience of Stein should come in... but it doesn't. This should have been the point in the discussion where the legal thinker delivers some theory as to when it is appropriate to legislate from the bench, and when not. Such enlightenment was not forthcoming.
Rather, Stein gave a wonderful talk about the moral issues in abortion. If you believe the baby's alive, then our legalized abortion is worse than the institution of slavery. While this could amount to a powerful speach, it is not a legal argument.

This all sounds trite, I know- besides, many legal issues share bedsheets with social issues. My only point is this: why Ben Stein? He's a celebrity. And why do we care what he thinks?

I, actually, do. But, I do wonder if the Federalist Society plans to bring in the Dixie Chicks....or perhaps Tim Robbins. We all have someone famous on our side, don't we?